The Present invention relates in general to multiple-family dwellings with a form of construction that yields enhanced security and more efficient land use. More particularly, the present invention relates to a double-cruciform structure having longitudinally and laterally extending dividing walls which define eight L-shaped dwelling portions, each dwelling portion having a private atrium courtyard and each courtyard being surrounded and enclosed for privacy and security.
Convention residential housing represents highly inefficient use of land and an exposure of property that invites vandalism, burglary and theft. By placing the house in the approximate center of a lot, the surrounding land is unable to be used as a complement for the structure except for plantings and to establish spacing from adjacent property owners. This approach leaves all sides of the house exposed and the view out of any window or door is typically limited to a small portion of the owner's own property and the neighbor's land and house. With smaller lots, a property owner's view is often dominated by someone else's property, the streets and traffic.
Since the perimeter of conventional residential housing is exposed, numerous opportunities exist for a break-in or vandalism. If the owner is home at the time, there is still a substantial risk due to the way that houses are configured and set on their corresponding lots. Further, looking out of a window does not necessarily enable a property owner to see or check the status of other portions of the house exterior. Conventional housing also represents an inefficient use of land because the traditional approach does not enable multiple-family housing within the same structure and excessive land is used for the surrounding yard.
Concerns over household crime, vandalism and burglary are neither minor nor easily ignored. As might be expected, burglary and robbery in urban areas is higher than in rural areas. The extent of the difference though may not be expected. Crimes of this type in urban areas exceed those in rural areas by a factor of almost 5 to 1 as reported by Scripps Howard News Service (Indianapolis Star, June 30, 1986). Theft in households of $25,000 or more is almost twice that of households with incomes less than $7,500. With the new emphasis on downtown and inner city renovation in many major cities and the desire of single people and professionals to be closer to their work, a significant premium is placed on downtown and inner city property. If the property is used for offices, high-rises are usually the result due to the efficient use of the land. However, if somewhat conventional residential units are to be built, unit density may not be the primary concern. A balance needs to be found between the compact, high-density approach of apartments and the less-efficient land use of the traditional residence.
The present invention offers that balance by a construction approach that easily doubles the population density of a "normal" city block while providing enhanced security, privacy and a private atrium courtyard for each family or occupant. The present invention is particularly well suited for renovation of a full city block, but can as well be used for new construction in either urban or rural areas. The "single-wide" approach of the present invention enables conventional stick-built construction or preconstructed housing modules which are moved on-site for the final, permanent attachment and finishing. Although the present invention is believed to provide the optimum balance between various factors and constraints, there have been earlier attempts to address some of the concerns solved by the present invention.
One approach to a more efficient use of land is provided by my earlier U.S. Pat. No. 3,629,983 which issued Dec. 20, 1971. By the disclosed quadrangle atrium concept, a common atrium is defined and enclosed by four individual dwelling units which are permanently attached together. A single atrium is shared by all the occupants of the four units. The enclosing nature of the dwelling units provides privacy for the use of the atrium and a desirable land use efficiency. However, the units are individually constructed and joined together and the exterior of each unit, configured with conventional doors and windows, remains exposed. Further, the view out of one occupant's unit is limited to either the street, a parking lot, or someone else's property, or alternatively, of the atrium and the dwelling units of the other three occupants. Further, the exposed exterior of each unit provides but a single barrier against intrusion.
A related approach which provides a shared or common patio or courtyard is found in the Panitz U.S. Pat. No. 3,678,639 which issued July 25, 1972. Panitz though discloses a mobile home arrangement wherein two or more mobile homes are arranged in order to give the appearance of a single conventional dwelling and the arrangement incorporates vertical walls which ar located at each end of the mobile homes and inbetween the two homes with the intent to give the combined homes an attractive appearance of a permanent conventional dwelling.
Since my earlier U.S. patent involved preconstructed housing, many of the prior references which I am aware of are directed to the assembly and arrangement of trailers, single-wide units, and related housing concepts. Disclosed by some of the following references are concepts for arranging the dwelling units relative to one another. Regardless of the particular details though, certain design deficiencies remain. In most cases the exterior of each unit is exposed and there is only a single barrier against intrusion. For example, Brown (U.S. Pat. No. 3,609,929 issued Oct. 5, 1971); Koger (U.S. Pat. No. 1,156,693 issued Oct. 12, 1915); and Whelan (U.S. Pat. No. 2,154,142 issued Apr. 11, 1939) each disclose concepts for joining two single-wide units together. Each unit begins as a partially preconstructed unit and final assembly is completed on site. As is evident from a review of these three references, the windows and doors remain exposed around the entire outer periphery of the completed assembly. The aforementioned concerns of privacy and security are not solved by the approaches adopted by Brown, Koger and Whelan. Other joining and arranging techniques are disclosed by Delk (U.S. Pat. No. 4,258,512 issued Mar. 31, 1981); Renauld (U.S. Pat. No. 3,640,037 issued Feb. 8, 1972); Van der Lely (U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,254,458; and 3,292,327 issued June 7, 1966 and Dec. 20, 1966, respectively). In these four references, the individual units are kept as single-family individual units, and the focus of each patent is on how to configure a plurality of such units into a layout or trailer park design. Once again, the aforementioned concerns of security, privacy, economy and efficient land use are not addressed by these references.
While many of the foregoing references are directed to multiple-family arrangements, some housing approaches have dealt with single-family units which are arranged to create a private patio or atrium area and with ways to segregate one piece of property from the adjacent lots. For example, in Coxe, U.S. Pat. No. 3,996,709 issued Dec. 14, 1976, individual housing units are arranged to define a patio (though not enclosed) which is separated from the adjacent property by a separating wall. One portion of each separating wall abuts up against a contiguous housing unit end. These walls are not integral with the individual units and in that sense not shared. Further, the doors and windows of each unit are exposed throughout the periphery of each unit and the separating walls are neither surrounding nor enclosing. In Schmitt, U.S. Pat. No. 3,894,369 issued July 15, 1975, we see a single-family dwelling that has its periphery exposed and is apparently set in the center of a lot. The arrangement which includes an outdoor patio 2, provides only a single security barrier. Although the patio is not shared and thus offers greater privacy, the remainder of the dwelling is unusual in that there are no exterior windows except for the glass portions 4 which may be opened. While security may be enhanced by reducing the number of exposed windows and doors, there is still only a single barrier against intrusion and nothing has been done to more efficiently utilize the land nor has anything been done to reduce construction costs by configuring the concept of Schmitt into multiple-family units.
Another singular patio approach without the benefit of building multiple-family units is disclosed by Gentry, U.S. Pat. No. 3,874,137, issued Apr. 1, 1975. As illustrated in FIG. 1 of Gentry, a series of individual dwelling units, separate and distinct from each other, are arranged so that each one defines a Private patio which is separated from the contiguous dwelling units of other property owners by solid side walls 57 and rear walls 59. Each dwelling unit is configured with its own separate and distinct pair of walls such that a rear wall corresponding to one unit is contiguous to but separate from the rear wall of the backing unit. The construction of these separate and distinct side and rear walls is inefficient, but this must be done in the manner disclosed since each dwelling unit is separate and distinct and not of a common design. Further, there is no indication that the illustrated units as set on their individual lots are built at the same time. Consequently, in view of the time stagger and in view of the varying layout design, the walls for the unit cannot be built until the unit is designed and set in place on its corresponding lot.
The final group of references which I am aware of does not appear to be particularly relevant to the present invention. However, these references appear to disclose, in two instances, construction concepts for residential units. These two references are French Patent No. 981.058 issued to Petit, and French Patent No. 920.354 issued to Arnould. The final reference is defensive publication under the name Ferwerda, publication number T964,001 which issued Nov. 1, 1977. This publication discloses a technique to secure or anchor members together.
It is clear that none of the foregoing references address all of the concerns which are addressed by the present invention, nor do these prior references either singularly or in combination anticipate or render obvious the present invention.
No one should argue that a conventional, stick-built, single-family dwelling, which is located in the approximate center of a lot, represents an inefficiency of land use and a costly construction approach. Multiple-family dwellings such as apartments represent a more efficient land use based on the square footage of living space relative to the land area occupied. Due to the scarcity and cost of land in certain areas, apartments have often been the only cost-effective approach. Apartment living though is not without its share of drawbacks. Privacy and security are concerns as well as the loss of a yard and/or patio. Until the present invention, a compromise between a traditional single-family approach and apartment living has not been disclosed nor suggested. The present invention is particularlly well suited for inner city, city block renewal projects.
Consider a typical city block arranged with 20 homes and lots, side by side and back to back in a 2.times.10 array. For inner city neighborhoods, the lot size of 60 feet by 100 feet is reasonable. If the house which is placed on that lot measures, by its outside dimensions, 30 feet by 40 feet, there are 1,200 square feet of residential space and a resulting 4,800 square feet of unutilized yard. With the house set in or near the middle of the lot, the 4,800 square feet of yard is arranged as a surrounding border approximately 15 feet wide on the sides and having an approximate 30-foot spacing front and rear. A garage may occupy some of this yard space, but otherwise, it is wasted land except for various plantings. This type of house and yard configuration offers neither privacy nor security.
By the present invention a "zero lot line" approach is used wherein the house is arranged as a U- or L-shaped structure and its outer walls are placed directly on the property line edge. With security walls disposed on the remaining property line edges except for the street side where the house and walls ar recessed from the property line, an atrium courtyard is defined on the interior and it is completely enclosed. While this approach still provides the same square footage of living space, the lot size can be cut in half. The homeowner still has a yard (atrium) and greatly enhanced security and privacy. The outer security wall provides double barrier against intrusion such that penetration through this outer wall does not enable access to the property and possessions of the occupant.
A further improvement offered by the present invention is the ability to accomplish the foregoing while building multiple-family, single structures. This is able to be done by using a dual-cruciform technique where one cruciform configured structure is centered at the interior, common corner of four contiguous lots. This particular dual-cruciform configuration will be disclosed in greater detail hereinafter. One advantage of this approach with the "zero lot line" concept is that adjacent units can be placed contiguous to each other and share a common dividing wall. This precludes the need for a separate security wall at that location without sacrificing privacy on security.
Each of the features of the present invention will be developed and disclosed more fully, and as the description of the present invention evolves, its improvements over the prior references and its substantial differences from those prior references will become more apparent.